## The misinterpretation of time dilation.

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

bangstrom » April 26th, 2017, 11:13 pm wrote:
handmade » April 26th, 2017, 6:29 pm wrote:
I have snipped your post there, relativity was devised at a much later date than time and at this time it is irrelevant to the discussion .

You have stated the problem exactly. This discussion is irrelevant to relativity.

I must say that was poor wording by myself and contradictory.

I feel you are missing the very simple point and do not understand or wilfully not understanding.

Perhaps I should re-wind it for you and ask you some questions.

Do you know how the measurement of 24 hours came about? please explain
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Twin one Earth devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two on planet X devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of planet X which rotates half the speed of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two argues with twin one that himself ages less and time runs slower.

Providing M1 = M2

Twin one : 1 second = 9,192,631,770 Hz

Twin two: 1 second = 18385263540 Hz
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

handmade » April 27th, 2017, 11:12 pm wrote:Twin one Earth devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two on planet X devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of planet X which rotates half the speed of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two argues with twin one that himself ages less and time runs slower.

Suppose that Twin One visits planet X, or Twin Two visits Earth. Do they still retain their different measurements of time? If so, they would have to conclude that they are aging at different rates, even when they are standing side by side. It would later become physically evident that they were wrong, and were in fact aging at the same rate.

Even if they are on their own planet, or out in space, they must observe/calculate that the two planets rotate at different rates. It logically follows that, if both planets are regarded as rotating once in "24 hours", their respective "hours" must correspond to different lengths of time. They would take this into account when determining their respective aging.

And, as has been said, none of this has anything to do with Special or General Relativity. It is just a question of defining units of time.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Positor » April 27th, 2017, 6:35 pm wrote:
handmade » April 27th, 2017, 11:12 pm wrote:Twin one Earth devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two on planet X devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of planet X which rotates half the speed of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two argues with twin one that himself ages less and time runs slower.

Do they still retain their different measurements of time?

Yes they both retain their different measurements of time , now moving on to connect this to relativity.

Think about what you have just replied,

If so, they would have to conclude that they are aging at different rates, even when they are standing side by side. It would later become physically evident that they were wrong, and were in fact aging at the same rate.

Now considering the present version of the twin Paradox,

Twin 1 is at relative rest on the inertia reference frame of the earth.

Twin two is in motion with a different frequency of time, (the exact same as twin 2 in my example)

Even if they are on their own planet, or out in space, they must observe/calculate that the two planets rotate at different rates. It logically follows that, if both planets are regarded as rotating once in "24 hours", their respective "hours" must correspond to different lengths of time. They would take this into account when determining their respective aging.

Exactly the same for the twin paradox. When history switched from the mechanical second of a clock with the equivalent of Caesium cycles to equal 1 second of time, they just simply did not realise the logical error of that 1 second equates to a fraction of 24 hrs which was at the time equal to one rotation of the earth. Thus the eventuality of deconstructing time to the origin of rotational speed of the earth relative to suns position.

Twin one on Earth devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two on planet X devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of planet X which rotates half the speed of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two argues with twin one that himself ages less and time runs slower.

Twin 2 argues you are measuring time too fast and the year is not 2016AD it is 1008AD.

Twin 3 scratches his head and claims both twin 1 and twin 2 are measuring time too slowly. Twin 3's planet rotates twice as fast relative to the earth.

Twin 3 claims the year is 4032 AD

neither twin can agree on the speed of light

t1(γ)/dx is not equal to t2(γ)/dx is not equal to t3(γ)/dx

Because neither twin can agree on the speed of time if devised by rotation of relative planet

Twin 4 , although should be quadruplets, was very smart and said we should use the Caesium frequency to the equivalent of each second measured.

Twin 1,2 and 3 looked on in amazement, each frequency would be different per second.

t1=____

t2=________

t3=__
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

handmade » April 28th, 2017, 12:55 am wrote:Twin 1 is at relative rest on the inertia reference frame of the earth.

Twin two is in motion with a different frequency of time, (the exact same as twin 2 in my example)

For the purpose of your argument, does it matter that they are in different inertial frames? Wouldn't your argument apply equally if they were in the same inertial frame — for example, standing side by side on the same planet, but each using their native planet's measurement of a second?

handmade wrote:When history switched from the mechanical second of a clock with the equivalent of Caesium cycles to equal 1 second of time, they just simply did not realise the logical error of that 1 second equates to a fraction of 24 hrs which was at the time equal to one rotation of the earth.

Since a second is now defined by the Caesium cycles, the history is irrelevant. It so happens that the specified number of such cycles was based on (a fraction of) the rotation of the earth; but it would now make no difference scientifically if this number had been arrived at differently, or if it had constituted a change in duration from the earlier rotation-based second. All that matters is that we now have a definition of a second that anyone from another planet could in principle agree on, regardless of any difference or change in planetary rotation rates.

handmade wrote:Twin one on Earth devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two on planet X devises the measurement of time by using one rotation of planet X which rotates half the speed of the earth = 24 hrs

Twin two argues with twin one that himself ages less and time runs slower.

I don't quite follow. If both twins regard their own measurement of time as the "right" one, they will apply this to both planets and disregard the other twin's "wrong" measurement. They will each therefore conclude that they are both "really" aging at the same rate.

Alternatively, they can agree to call both twins' measurements "seconds", but distinguish them by calling them "Earth seconds" and "Planet X seconds" respectively. They will recognize that these are different units (like, for example, degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Celsius, or ordinary miles and nautical miles). Then, when they make the necessary conversion and use the same type of "second" to compare their aging, they will again conclude that they are aging at the same rate.

handmade wrote:Twin 4 , although should be quadruplets, was very smart and said we should use the Caesium frequency to the equivalent of each second measured.

Indeed. Problem solved?
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

Positor » April 27th, 2017, 11:31 pm wrote:
handmade » April 28th, 2017, 12:55 am wrote:Twin 1 is at relative rest on the inertia reference frame of the earth.

Twin two is in motion with a different frequency of time, (the exact same as twin 2 in my example)

For the purpose of your argument, does it matter that they are in different inertial frames? Wouldn't your argument apply equally if they were in the same inertial frame — for example, standing side by side on the same planet, but each using their native planet's measurement of a second?

Correct, it would not matter if they were visiting each other on their planet, there perception of time would be one day was equal to one rotation.

handmade wrote:When history switched from the mechanical second of a clock with the equivalent of Caesium cycles to equal 1 second of time, they just simply did not realise the logical error of that 1 second equates to a fraction of 24 hrs which was at the time equal to one rotation of the earth.

Since a second is now defined by the Caesium cycles, the history is irrelevant. It so happens that the specified number of such cycles was based on (a fraction of) the rotation of the earth; but it would now make no difference scientifically if this number had been arrived at differently, or if it had constituted a change in duration from the earlier rotation-based second. All that matters is that we now have a definition of a second that anyone from another planet could in principle agree on, regardless of any difference or change in planetary rotation rates.

This part you are incorrect on , the history is very relevant, but I also know I am 100% correct by the rest of the paragraph highlighted in red.

If twin 1 was to swap the mechanical clock he was using to a Caesium frequency the frequency would be

Twin one : 9,192,631,770 Hz per second

If twin two was to swap the mechanical clock he was using for a Caesium frequency

twin two: 18385263540 Hz per second

Simultaneity as shown, is why there is no time dilation.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

handmade » April 28th, 2017, 1:24 am wrote:
Simultaneity as shown, is why there is no time dilation.

A temporal distortion in the spacetime continuum should distort both clocks equally since they share the same inertial reference frame so how do you know they weren't both dilated?
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 523
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Hi all,

I'm no following the logic here.

Given a set of Twins, one of which takes off on a long journey at very high speed, say 86% the speed of light.. that on return finds his/her earth bound Twin has died of old age.. while the traveler is still relatively young. What possible difference does the time-keeping methods or definitions of seconds have to do with this Reality?

If Handmade is arguing that there will be no age difference when the Traveling Twin returned, then He/She will be arguing against an incredible number of confirmations tests of Relativity that puts him/her far from having any foundation to debate from.

Fact: The faster you go, the slower your clocks run and the slower you age.. period.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

handmade » April 23rd, 2017, 3:25 pm wrote:The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Clearly this effect was unrelated to any conflicting measurements of a second based on different planetary rotations, since no other planets were involved.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Conclusion from someone who knows nothing. Wherever you go, there you are. You do not change. Your body does not change. You do not age according to the speed of a clock or the rotation of a planet. You age as your body ages. If you are healthy, you'll be able to say you are 59 but have the body of a 39-year-old. If you are sickly, the opposite. Your chronological age may be 30 and you have the body of a 50-year-old. You may travel 1,000 light years away but you will still be the same age as your twin brother -chronologically.

So, the question? When you all talk about "age", are you talking about chronological age or physical age? Sometimes we make statements without considering all the nuances of the language.
vivian maxine
Resident Member

Posts: 2833
Joined: 01 Aug 2014

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

For those who are confused, this discussion has little to do with reality and nothing to do with relativity. So just be glad the confusion is not yours.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 523
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Positor » April 28th, 2017, 8:14 am wrote:
handmade » April 23rd, 2017, 3:25 pm wrote:The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Clearly this effect was unrelated to any conflicting measurements of a second based on different planetary rotations, since no other planets were involved.

That is correct, the experiment results is also correct except for the interpretation of the results and what they actual mean.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

bangstrom » April 28th, 2017, 1:25 pm wrote:For those who are confused, this discussion has little to do with reality and nothing to do with relativity. So just be glad the confusion is not yours.

I am afraid the confusion is actually yours, it is very simple to understand , science have it wrong , it is not their faults for being wrong, I blame the parlour tricks of history from a society where being a scientist was like fame, social aristocrats with more ideas than logic and sense.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Dave_Oblad » April 28th, 2017, 6:34 am wrote:Hi all,

I'm no following the logic here.

Given a set of Twins, one of which takes off on a long journey at very high speed, say 86% the speed of light.. that on return finds his/her earth bound Twin has died of old age.. while the traveler is still relatively young. What possible difference does the time-keeping methods or definitions of seconds have to do with this Reality?

If Handmade is arguing that there will be no age difference when the Traveling Twin returned, then He/She will be arguing against an incredible number of confirmations tests of Relativity that puts him/her far from having any foundation to debate from.

Fact: The faster you go, the slower your clocks run and the slower you age.. period.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Quite clearly sir you have added speculation to the twin paradox by saying the twin has aged faster and died, speculation because there is no actual twins, it is a thought experiment and never been tested with identical twins.

I am arguing there is no time dilation and poor misinterpretation which I have already quite clearly shown.

It is not I who needs to understand time dilation it is yourself who needs to understand me if you want to here nothing but the truth.
I only tell the truth sir, I do not make things up when I am being serious and not messing about.

I have used all present information to show the problem.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

bangstrom » April 28th, 2017, 4:04 am wrote:
handmade » April 28th, 2017, 1:24 am wrote:
Simultaneity as shown, is why there is no time dilation.

A temporal distortion in the spacetime continuum should distort both clocks equally since they share the same inertial reference frame so how do you know they weren't both dilated?

I know because I know any measurement of time greater than 0 becomes an immediate past. I think you may all be overlooking my premise for argument, which nobody in the world can say is any different.

Both clocks are not recording the speed of time, both frequencies are relative to the earths rotation speed .

Twin one t1=1second relative to the earths rotation speed.

Twin two t2=slower relative to t1 relative to the earths rotation speed.

Twin 1 is at relative rest on Earth

Twin 2 travels in relative motion travels at 3/4 the speed of light

Twin 1 measures time (tp)

Twin 2 measures time (tp)

Twin 1 and twin 2 remain synchronous in timing like two equal size and equal speed, rotating cogs.

All you have to realise is that one day is not a measurement of time, it is a measurement of one rotation of the earth i.e relative timing
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Handmade wrote:Quite clearly sir you have added speculation to the twin paradox by saying the twin has aged faster and died, speculation because there is no actual twins, it is a thought experiment and never been tested with identical twins.

Wrong (sort of). Wiki on Twin paradox: Time dilation has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment. It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams.

Granted, we have never done this with real twins.. we can't go fast enough to see a significant difference in their aging. Instead, we have flown atomic clocks around on jets and proved Einstein Relativity to be accurate. Also, for fast moving particles, we see aging slowed down in particle accelerators.. etc. It's also an aspect of our GPS system. So sorry, too much proof over the decades to debate such now.. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

handmade » April 28th, 2017, 9:34 pm wrote:
Positor » April 28th, 2017, 8:14 am wrote:
handmade » April 23rd, 2017, 3:25 pm wrote:The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Clearly this effect was unrelated to any conflicting measurements of a second based on different planetary rotations, since no other planets were involved.

That is correct, the experiment results is also correct except for the interpretation of the results and what they actual mean.

Can you elaborate on this, please? Why, in your opinion, did the three sets of clocks disagree with one another?
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Handmade wrote:Quite clearly sir you have added speculation to the twin paradox by saying the twin has aged faster and died, speculation because there is no actual twins, it is a thought experiment and never been tested with identical twins.

Wrong (sort of). Wiki on Twin paradox: Time dilation has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment. It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams.

Granted, we have never done this with real twins.. we can't go fast enough to see a significant difference in their aging. Instead, we have flown atomic clocks around on jets and proved Einstein Relativity to be accurate. Also, for fast moving particles, we see aging slowed down in particle accelerators.. etc. It's also an aspect of our GPS system. So sorry, too much proof over the decades to debate such now.. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)

A person is either incorrect or correct, there is no sort of.

I have said in my opening posts about the Hafele–Keating experiment, I have no doubt that the experiment shows a difference in frequencies. However, only if one was to interpret the caesium to be time, would there be a time dilation.
Your mistake Sir is that you have just described a timing dilation and have misinterpreted the information , completely ignored history and the devising of a measurement of a day. Timing is not time Sir.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Positor » April 28th, 2017, 6:13 pm wrote:Can you elaborate on this, please? Why, in your opinion, did the three sets of clocks disagree with one another?

Do you understand entropy (S)?

What we measure of the Caesium atom is an output, by thermodynamics things share ''things'' of it's (S).

At relative rest (ground state) the exchange of entropy with the (S) of Earth,bodies and space is:

hf/S
S

The ''speed'' of change of (S)= c (although Maxwell got the speed of c incorrect)

''Input'' flow changes the ''output'' flow.

In short we are not measuring time, I think we are measuring relative entropy timing.
Last edited by handmade on April 28th, 2017, 8:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

I think I understand what you are trying to express, but this tangent about the way we measure time by Earth Rotations is a Red Herring.

Personally, I accept that Real Time changes at a constant rate for the Whole Universe. That clocks don't measure Time. That when one moves through Space, it is at the expense of making Matter more complex. The increase in Matter complexity introduces extra cycles inside said Matter. Like adding more gears into a clock. The total number of mini-cycles must increase to hold Matter together. The addition of all these extra mini-Cycles means it take longer for the total piece of matter to complete a full Matter cycle.

Thus, clocks don't measure Real Time, they just slow down when Matter moves faster through Space (or when Matter is subjected to a Gravitational Field).

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

I think I understand what you are trying to express, but this tangent about the way we measure time by Earth Rotations is a Red Herring.

I am afraid that is not a red herring. Do you in some way disagree that before the caesium standard was devised and probably a few other other mechanical ways of measuring time, that 24 hours is not equal to one rotation of the Earth? i.e 1 day

Personally, I accept that Real Time changes at a constant rate for the Whole Universe. That clocks don't measure Time. That when one moves through Space, it is at the expense of making Matter more complex. The increase in Matter complexity introduces extra cycles inside said Matter. Like adding more gears into a clock. The total number of mini-cycles must increase to hold Matter together. The addition of all these extra mini-Cycles means it take longer for the total piece of matter to complete a full Matter cycle.

Thus, clocks don't measure Real Time, they just slow down when Matter moves faster through Space (or when Matter is subjected to a Gravitational Field).

Regards,
Dave :^)

I believe Newton was correct about absolute time and by incorporating Planck's work, Planck time showing Newton to be correct.
I.e Planck time would be constant for all observers.

But, there might be a problem in saying that because of the speed of light is not correct.

c/dx = c/dx but I now have no value for c.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Relativistic timing is relative to absolute time 0.

We are timing motion relative to 0.

My T.O.E is that everything is relative to 0.

Twin 1 uses γ/dx to time time

Twin 2 uses γ/dx to time time

Both twins are always synchronous

Let me now discuss γ travelling from (A) to (B) and synchronous travelling from (B) to (A).

Twin 1 and twin 2 are 1 ''light second'' apart.

Both twins synchronously release γ

Both twins see each other at the same time.

Twin 1 observes twin 2 from 1 second ago

Twin 2 observes twin 1 from 1 second ago

The twins both age 1 second while γ is in travel ,

The space, the γ, the twins , all age 1 second while γ is travelling.

Twin 1 starts off in the present geometrical position of twin 2,

Twin 2 travels 1 light second away from twin 1

At no time in the Event do either twins leave the present.

The synchronous of γ keeps both twins synchronous in time always in the present at the same time.

We always see things in the present, I do not think we have how sight works correct.

I suggest opaque space is transparent, this allows us to see through it similar to looking through a sheet of glass when light is present.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

The misinterpretation of time dilation

Abstract-This paper is intended to show the true nature of time and show that time dilation is greatly misinterpreted. Also this paper aims to prove that Isaac Newton was correct about absolute time which is a conclusion reached by showing the misinterpretation of time dilation and the understanding of time.

Premise:Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).

Introduction

The orgin of measuement of time, being that of one day was equal to one rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun's position. Throughout history there has been many arguments about time and what is time, scientists, philosophers and the general public have all engaged in ideas about time. At the moment in physics, we use the Caesium standard time, one second = 9,192,631,770 Hz , to measure time passed.

In 1914 Albert Einstein submitted his papers about special relativity in which is world widely accepted to be objective reality. Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), this a notion from Albert Einsteins special relativity papers which has been proven to be true by various experimental observations on many occasions. The more notable of these experimental observations being that of Hafele–Keating.

''Hafele–Keating experiment

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Before Albert Einsteins notions about relative time, Issac Newton believed in absolute time, unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time could only ever be understood mathematically. The change of time being so subtle, that humans had the inability to perceive this, humans only having the ability to perceive relative time, in my mind, a mechanical construct of relativity.
It is now of course word widely accepted that Newton was disproved about absolute time and Einstein is correct about relative time.

However, after several years of looking deep inside the minds of Einstein and Newtons thought's,looking at the evidence, I have come to the relisation that neither Newton or Einstein truly understand time or the measurent of time. Thus leading me to my first axiom and premise for argument, which I observe to be a postulate, any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).

Postulate 1 - Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).

Using to support this postulate I would like to relate this to the big bang. There would be a truth that from the instant of the big bang , history began to be created at the instant of expansion from a 0 point energy or 0 point space. (You may consider this to be 0 time).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

''Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.''

In regards to a single point, it is an impossibility to expand this single point without creating an immediate past proportional to the rate/speed of the expansion. In geometry and vectors , if we can imagine a single point and try to move this point along vector X , it is impossible to move this point without creating an immediate past geometrical position. It neither matters at what speed we try to move the single point along vector X, the amount of distance travelled relatively ''forward'' in geometrical position is directly proportional to it's length of immediate relative past position.

Diagram (A)

past position<-------------present position------------>future position

Diagram (A) shows an object in motion creating a past position travelling towards a future position.

Extending this to apply to chronological position,

Diagram (B)

past..............present>

The present can not move forward in time without creating an immediate past.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

handmade » May 1st, 2017, 3:21 pm wrote:The misinterpretation of time dilation

Abstract-This paper is intended to show the true nature of time and show that time dilation is greatly misinterpreted. Also this paper aims to prove that Isaac Newton was correct about absolute time which is a conclusion reached by showing the misinterpretation of time dilation and the understanding of time.

Premise:Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).

Introduction

The orgin of measuement of time, being that of one day was equal to one rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun's position. Throughout history there has been many arguments about time and what is time, scientists, philosophers and the general public have all engaged in ideas about time. At the moment in physics, we use the Caesium standard time, one second = 9,192,631,770 Hz , to measure time passed.

In 1914 Albert Einstein submitted his papers about special relativity in which is world widely accepted to be objective reality. Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity.

It is world widely accepted that time can slow down or speed up (time dilation), this a notion from Albert Einsteins special relativity papers which has been proven to be true by various experimental observations on many occasions. The more notable of these experimental observations being that of Hafele–Keating.

''Hafele–Keating experiment

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''

Before Albert Einsteins notions about relative time, Issac Newton believed in absolute time, unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time could only ever be understood mathematically. The change of time being so subtle, that humans had the inability to perceive this, humans only having the ability to perceive relative time, in my mind, a mechanical construct of relativity.
It is now of course word widely accepted that Newton was disproved about absolute time and Einstein is correct about relative time.

However, after several years of looking deep inside the minds of Einstein and Newtons thought's,looking at the evidence, I have come to the relisation that neither Newton or Einstein truly understand time or the measurent of time. Thus leading me to my first axiom and premise for argument, which I observe to be a postulate, any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).

Postulate 1 - Any measurement of time no matter how small of a measurement or the frequency/speed of measurement becomes an immediate past (history).

Using to support this postulate I would like to relate this to the big bang. There would be a truth that from the instant of the big bang , history began to be created at the instant of expansion from a 0 point energy or 0 point space. (You may consider this to be 0 time).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

''Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.''

In regards to a single point, it is an impossibility to expand this single point without creating an immediate past proportional to the rate/speed of the expansion. In geometry and vectors , if we can imagine a single point and try to move this point along vector X , it is impossible to move this point without creating an immediate past geometrical position. It neither matters at what speed we try to move the single point along vector X, the amount of distance travelled relatively ''forward'' in geometrical position is directly proportional to it's length of immediate relative past position.

Diagram (A)

past position<-------------present position------------>future position

Diagram (A) shows an object in motion creating a past position travelling towards a future position.

Extending this to apply to chronological position,

Diagram (B)

past..............present>

The present can not move forward in time without creating an immediate past.

Postulate 2

Any observer who devised time by one day being equal to one rotation of their relative planet, would measure a length of one day to be different than another observer's day length, on another planet , therefore showing a relative difference in their perceived speed of time.

To be continued.....
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation.

Edit -

Postulate 2 - change title

Simultaneity .

Albert Einstein is his paper on the electrodynamics of a moving body first mentioned simultaneity,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity

''Simultaneity is the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute relation between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another. ''

Any observer who devised time by one day being equal to one rotation of their relative planet, would measure a length of one day to be different than another observer's measured day length on their own relative planet , therefore showing a relative difference in their perceived ''speed'' of time. By the ''speed'' of time, I am referring to how fast time passes by for observers.
This notion, I have related to Einsteins simultaneity , although Einstein doe's not explain it this way, I believe this is where his thought's should of ended up. I believe Einsteins thoughts were close to the truth but not to the exact truth.
I believe this notion of logic to be my second precise postulate and axiom.

Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

I will repeat my earlier comments:

Positor » April 28th, 2017, 5:31 am wrote:If both twins regard their own measurement of time as the "right" one, they will apply this to both planets and disregard the other twin's "wrong" measurement. They will each therefore conclude that they are both "really" aging at the same rate.

Alternatively, they can agree to call both twins' measurements "seconds", but distinguish them by calling them "Earth seconds" and "Planet X seconds" respectively. They will recognize that these are different units (like, for example, degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Celsius, or ordinary miles and nautical miles). Then, when they make the necessary conversion and use the same type of "second" to compare their aging, they will again conclude that they are aging at the same rate.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

Positor » May 2nd, 2017, 11:35 am wrote:I will repeat my earlier comments:

Positor » April 28th, 2017, 5:31 am wrote:If both twins regard their own measurement of time as the "right" one, they will apply this to both planets and disregard the other twin's "wrong" measurement. They will each therefore conclude that they are both "really" aging at the same rate.

Alternatively, they can agree to call both twins' measurements "seconds", but distinguish them by calling them "Earth seconds" and "Planet X seconds" respectively. They will recognize that these are different units (like, for example, degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Celsius, or ordinary miles and nautical miles). Then, when they make the necessary conversion and use the same type of "second" to compare their aging, they will again conclude that they are aging at the same rate.

Yes and yes ! exactly that.

You quite clearly understand this.

If both twins used (tp), they are synchronous

Have you yet connected this to relativity and now understand the consequence ?

added - Or was that a leading question? and you are now by frivolous litigation going try to bring in the frequency of the Caesium? The frequency that equates to the rotational speed of the earth.

Twin two would argue that his measured frequency equivalent to a fraction of 24 hrs was different to yours and correct.

Not only would his perceived speed of time affect his measurement of Caesium frequency, also the difference in mass of planet x would also give a different measure and different frequency.

To begin with twin 1 and twin two at rest at ground state on their relative planet can both agree their Caesium clocks ''tick'' at different speeds/rates, their clocks not being synchronous in timing.

(proven by relativity and experiment).

Both twins can agree that using the Caesium frequency as an equivalent to a mechanical second based on a fraction of 24 hours of their relative planets rotational speed is not a good idea to measure time.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

handmade » May 3rd, 2017, 12:53 am wrote:Have you yet connected this to relativity and now understand the consequence ?

I still don't think this has anything to do with relativity (in the Einstein sense). There are not really any people from other planets, but time dilation nevertheless exists. Relativistic phenomena do not involve ambiguous time units. In the twin paradox, Alice and Bob are both natives of Earth.

handmade wrote:Not only would his perceived speed of time affect his measurement of Caesium frequency, also the difference in mass of planet x would also give a different measure and different frequency.

The latter point could be solved by their agreeing to specify the Caesium frequency in terms of the same planet.

handmade wrote:To begin with twin 1 and twin two at rest at ground state on their relative planet can both agree their Caesium clocks ''tick'' at different speeds/rates, their clocks not being synchronous in timing.

If they are both in the same inertial frame, their Caesium clocks will tick at the same rate. Any apparent difference in terms of "seconds" will be merely due to their different definitions of "second" and the consequent difference in calibration of their clocks; it will not be a physical effect at all.

Consider the following analogy. We stand side by side, each with a thermometer marked simply in "Degrees". But my thermometer's degrees happen to be Celsius, while yours are Fahrenheit. If the reading on my thermometer rises by 5 degrees while yours rises by 9 degrees, we would not say that you have experienced a greater "temperature rise" than me. We would recognize that we have experienced (felt) the same temperature rise, but that your "degrees" are different units from mine. The same applies to time: the real passing of time can be compared in ways independent of the definition of time units – e.g. one can consider the relative rates of bodily processes/aging.

handmade wrote:Both twins can agree that using the Caesium frequency as an equivalent to a mechanical second based on a fraction of 24 hours of their relative planets rotational speed is not a good idea to measure time.

So they will either (a) agree on a common definition of a second, or (b) specify "Earth seconds" and "Planet X seconds" as appropriate, and carry out the necessary conversions. Then they will be OK.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

Positor » May 2nd, 2017, 10:03 pm wrote:
handmade » May 3rd, 2017, 12:53 am wrote:
The latter point could be solved by their agreeing to specify the Caesium frequency in terms of the same planet.
.

It is everything to do with relativity.

How do you presume that the twins could agree on a Caesium frequency when both twins argue their speed of frequency is the correct speed of time?

What equivalent are you going to use if you cant use a fraction of 24hrs?

The obvious points I am making is showing a ''school boy'' error in history.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: The misinterpretation of time dilation

handmade » May 3rd, 2017, 11:48 am wrote:How do you presume that the twins could agree on a Caesium frequency when both twins argue their speed of frequency is the correct speed of time?

They agree (if they are in the same inertial frame) that the physical electronic transitions in their respective Caesium clocks occur at the same frequency. All they disagree about is the definition of a second. So they either agree to adopt the same definition, or make the necessary conversion from one definition to the other.

handmade wrote:What equivalent are you going to use if you cant use a fraction of 24hrs?

The electronic transitions of atoms are periodic phenomena, just like the rotations of planets, so they can be used instead. They are not intrinsically linked to planetary rotations — the decision to pick a number of Caesium transition periods corresponding to the earlier rotation-based second was merely a convention. The Caesium definition is independent of any actual or possible changes in the rotation of the Earth.

Can you please also address the other points in my previous post. In particular, how can relativistic phenomena depend on people from differently-rotating planets when no such people exist?
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1090
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

PreviousNext